People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

Or maybe there can be degrees of #2, and it doesn't have to be all or nothing?

Personally, I feel calling a driver a #2 is valid any time there's a clear divide in priority between the drivers. If it can only apply to a useless peon who's not allowed to make any impact on his teammate, I really think there should be a clearer term for that.

A driver that becomes designated No2 is already presumably lesser than No1 that the team pays a lot more money for. Now, adding a clear divide in priority between the two, that's pretty much it. Maybe there would be a couple of races in a season where a more obvious action would have to be done, but the teams would prefer to avoid such as it is indeed a bad PR. And even then, that would be occurring in the case of a tight WDC competition, and particularly in the second part of the season when the No2 driver's chances for WDC are practically gone. Since the Schumacher era, we have seen such a couple of times with Alonso - Massa.

So now we have only 2 teams in that situation (finally). Kimi with 100 points short to Vettel, he is a done deal. Mathematically yes, he got a "shot", but hey! His usefulness to Ferrari at this point is to be "a useless pion" from now on, if the situation occurs. That is the reality.Mercedes? Basically same, though not in that sharp contrast.

But they both might well not come in that situation, particularly if Merc keeps its dominance shown in the first two races of this second half.

You are going with what Irvine says. So why do you think that there were not tons of media outrage over this? This would have been like cake and the icing too for the media, yet finding supporting articles og what i would call a rather dispicable action on the part of both Schumi and Ferrari is very difficult. If it is true, I'd be very disappointed in both...unless there were some reasoning we are not seeing.

To answer you other question, I can think of NO reason Schumi, or any other drjver would have that kind of power unless, like Dan Gurney, they owned the team and even the they would be dumb to use it that way.

Lastly, if there were concens about a power struggle between Luca & Schumi, you'd have to admit that the situation was quite a bit different in 2005 than in 1997.... Schumi coming off 5 consecutive WDCs in Ferraris. That could embolden a person if that were the cause of any rift.

I don't think it would have been a big story at the time. That kind of behaviour was not unusual back then when being number 1 bought you a hell of a lot more benefit than being number 1 now.

People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

It wasn't unusual for the No.1 to pick and chose their testing programs.

That being said I doubt this actually happened. I think Irvine is exaggerating.

This could well be true, this is when there was unlimited testing, not a lot of testing might mean hardly any at all, when Blake says that Irvine not being able to test would have been damaging for Ferrari then what benefit to Ferrari to limit Irvine in this way?

You are going with what Irvine says. So why do you think that there were not tons of media outrage over this? This would have been like cake and the icing too for the media, yet finding supporting articles og what i would call a rather dispicable action on the part of both Schumi and Ferrari is very difficult. If it is true, I'd be very disappointed in both...unless there were some reasoning we are not seeing.

To answer you other question, I can think of NO reason Schumi, or any other drjver would have that kind of power unless, like Dan Gurney, they owned the team and even the they would be dumb to use it that way.

Lastly, if there were concens about a power struggle between Luca & Schumi, you'd have to admit that the situation was quite a bit different in 2005 than in 1997.... Schumi coming off 5 consecutive WDCs in Ferraris. That could embolden a person if that were the cause of any rift.

I don't think it would have been a big story at the time. That kind of behaviour was not unusual back then when being number 1 bought you a hell of a lot more benefit than being number 1 now.

People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

It wasn't unusual for the No.1 to pick and chose their testing programs.

That being said I doubt this actually happened. I think Irvine is exaggerating.

This could well be true, this is when there was unlimited testing, not a lot of testing might mean hardly any at all, when Blake says that Irvine not being able to test would have been damaging for Ferrari then what benefit to Ferrari to limit Irvine in this way?

None...which is why i said that it would damaging to Ferrari to prevent Irvine from testing... or to the point (I think) of your question to have very little testing.

BTW, I see you have yet to respond to my frequently asked question as to where is the media frenzy over such a shocking action as Irvine claims happened??? Do we really believe that they wouldn't have gone bonkers over such an unfair action? What i am not seeing... yet, is a creditable verification that it happened as Irvine says. Like I have said several times... it just doesn't make sense. I am not calling Irvine a liar, but perhaps he did as Mikey said... exaggerate the story. Makes for a much better story i line to say because of ONE qualifying Irvine was not allowed to test for the whole season. Ferrari had not had a WCC in nearly 20 years and despite what some may say, the WDC was and is important to Ferrari.

You are going with what Irvine says. So why do you think that there were not tons of media outrage over this? This would have been like cake and the icing too for the media, yet finding supporting articles og what i would call a rather dispicable action on the part of both Schumi and Ferrari is very difficult. If it is true, I'd be very disappointed in both...unless there were some reasoning we are not seeing.

To answer you other question, I can think of NO reason Schumi, or any other drjver would have that kind of power unless, like Dan Gurney, they owned the team and even the they would be dumb to use it that way.

Lastly, if there were concens about a power struggle between Luca & Schumi, you'd have to admit that the situation was quite a bit different in 2005 than in 1997.... Schumi coming off 5 consecutive WDCs in Ferraris. That could embolden a person if that were the cause of any rift.

I don't think it would have been a big story at the time. That kind of behaviour was not unusual back then when being number 1 bought you a hell of a lot more benefit than being number 1 now.

People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

It wasn't unusual for the No.1 to pick and chose their testing programs.

That being said I doubt this actually happened. I think Irvine is exaggerating.

This could well be true, this is when there was unlimited testing, not a lot of testing might mean hardly any at all, when Blake says that Irvine not being able to test would have been damaging for Ferrari then what benefit to Ferrari to limit Irvine in this way?

None...which is why i said that it would damaging to Ferrari to prevent Irvine from testing... or to the point (I think) of your question to have very little testing.

BTW, I see you have yet to respond to my frequently asked question as to where is the media frenzy over such a shocking action as Irvine claims happened??? Do we really believe that they wouldn't have gone bonkers over such an unfair action? What i am not seeing... yet, is a creditable verification that it happened as Irvine says. Like I have said several times... it just doesn't make sense. I am not calling Irvine a liar, but perhaps he did as Mikey said... exaggerate the story. Makes for a much better story i line to say because of ONE qualifying Irvine was not allowed to test for the whole season. Ferrari had not had a WCC in nearly 20 years and despite what some may say, the WDC was and is important to Ferrari.

Well the article posted clearly shows that the media were aware of the lack of testing that Irvine was receiving but back then I would say that drivers being treated unfairly was perhaps a common thing and nothing to shout about?

You are going with what Irvine says. So why do you think that there were not tons of media outrage over this? This would have been like cake and the icing too for the media, yet finding supporting articles og what i would call a rather dispicable action on the part of both Schumi and Ferrari is very difficult. If it is true, I'd be very disappointed in both...unless there were some reasoning we are not seeing.

To answer you other question, I can think of NO reason Schumi, or any other drjver would have that kind of power unless, like Dan Gurney, they owned the team and even the they would be dumb to use it that way.

Lastly, if there were concens about a power struggle between Luca & Schumi, you'd have to admit that the situation was quite a bit different in 2005 than in 1997.... Schumi coming off 5 consecutive WDCs in Ferraris. That could embolden a person if that were the cause of any rift.

I don't think it would have been a big story at the time. That kind of behaviour was not unusual back then when being number 1 bought you a hell of a lot more benefit than being number 1 now.

People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

It wasn't unusual for the No.1 to pick and chose their testing programs.

That being said I doubt this actually happened. I think Irvine is exaggerating.

This could well be true, this is when there was unlimited testing, not a lot of testing might mean hardly any at all, when Blake says that Irvine not being able to test would have been damaging for Ferrari then what benefit to Ferrari to limit Irvine in this way?

None...which is why i said that it would damaging to Ferrari to prevent Irvine from testing... or to the point (I think) of your question to have very little testing.

BTW, I see you have yet to respond to my frequently asked question as to where is the media frenzy over such a shocking action as Irvine claims happened??? Do we really believe that they wouldn't have gone bonkers over such an unfair action? What i am not seeing... yet, is a creditable verification that it happened as Irvine says. Like I have said several times... it just doesn't make sense. I am not calling Irvine a liar, but perhaps he did as Mikey said... exaggerate the story. Makes for a much better story i line to say because of ONE qualifying Irvine was not allowed to test for the whole season. Ferrari had not had a WCC in nearly 20 years and despite what some may say, the WDC was and is important to Ferrari.

Well the article posted clearly shows that the media were aware of the lack of testing that Irvine was receiving but back then I would say that drivers being treated unfairly was perhaps a common thing and nothing to shout about?

Which article was that?

Yeah, you are probably right.... diva drivers, fearful of their cohorts after getting beat once in qualifying, making their team terminate their teammate's opportunities to test the cars he was to drive on the track was probably "old news" and not worthy of commentary. It was likely just the normal way of being unfair to drivers... there was such a low standard back then. The media wouldn't seen it as note-worthy.

It was possibly even spelled out in the contracts.... maybe a clause 113.1.45 "though shalt not beat Michael Schumacher in qualifying or your car testing will cease for the remainder of the season". There might even be a 113.1.46 which states that in future years in punishment "you will do MOST of testing, including tire and chassis testing, after which Sir Diva driver" will just get in the car and go ridiculously fast"

I don't think it would have been a big story at the time. That kind of behaviour was not unusual back then when being number 1 bought you a hell of a lot more benefit than being number 1 now.

People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

It wasn't unusual for the No.1 to pick and chose their testing programs.

That being said I doubt this actually happened. I think Irvine is exaggerating.

This could well be true, this is when there was unlimited testing, not a lot of testing might mean hardly any at all, when Blake says that Irvine not being able to test would have been damaging for Ferrari then what benefit to Ferrari to limit Irvine in this way?

None...which is why i said that it would damaging to Ferrari to prevent Irvine from testing... or to the point (I think) of your question to have very little testing.

BTW, I see you have yet to respond to my frequently asked question as to where is the media frenzy over such a shocking action as Irvine claims happened??? Do we really believe that they wouldn't have gone bonkers over such an unfair action? What i am not seeing... yet, is a creditable verification that it happened as Irvine says. Like I have said several times... it just doesn't make sense. I am not calling Irvine a liar, but perhaps he did as Mikey said... exaggerate the story. Makes for a much better story i line to say because of ONE qualifying Irvine was not allowed to test for the whole season. Ferrari had not had a WCC in nearly 20 years and despite what some may say, the WDC was and is important to Ferrari.

Well the article posted clearly shows that the media were aware of the lack of testing that Irvine was receiving but back then I would say that drivers being treated unfairly was perhaps a common thing and nothing to shout about?

Which article was that?

Yeah, you are probably right.... diva drivers, fearful of their cohorts after getting beat once in qualifying, making their team terminate their teammate's opportunities to test the cars he was to drive on the track was probably "old news" and not worthy of commentary. It was likely just the normal way of being unfair to drivers... there was such a low standard back then. The media wouldn't seen it as note-worthy.

It was possibly even spelled out in the contracts.... maybe a clause 113.1.45 "though shalt not beat Michael Schumacher in qualifying or your car testing will cease for the remainder of the season". There might even be a 113.1.46 which states that in future years in punishment "you will do MOST of testing, including tire and chassis testing, after which Sir Diva driver" will just get in the car and go ridiculously fast"

This could well be true, this is when there was unlimited testing, not a lot of testing might mean hardly any at all, when Blake says that Irvine not being able to test would have been damaging for Ferrari then what benefit to Ferrari to limit Irvine in this way?

None...which is why i said that it would damaging to Ferrari to prevent Irvine from testing... or to the point (I think) of your question to have very little testing.

BTW, I see you have yet to respond to my frequently asked question as to where is the media frenzy over such a shocking action as Irvine claims happened??? Do we really believe that they wouldn't have gone bonkers over such an unfair action? What i am not seeing... yet, is a creditable verification that it happened as Irvine says. Like I have said several times... it just doesn't make sense. I am not calling Irvine a liar, but perhaps he did as Mikey said... exaggerate the story. Makes for a much better story i line to say because of ONE qualifying Irvine was not allowed to test for the whole season. Ferrari had not had a WCC in nearly 20 years and despite what some may say, the WDC was and is important to Ferrari.

Well the article posted clearly shows that the media were aware of the lack of testing that Irvine was receiving but back then I would say that drivers being treated unfairly was perhaps a common thing and nothing to shout about?

Which article was that?

Yeah, you are probably right.... diva drivers, fearful of their cohorts after getting beat once in qualifying, making their team terminate their teammate's opportunities to test the cars he was to drive on the track was probably "old news" and not worthy of commentary. It was likely just the normal way of being unfair to drivers... there was such a low standard back then. The media wouldn't seen it as note-worthy.

It was possibly even spelled out in the contracts.... maybe a clause 113.1.45 "though shalt not beat Michael Schumacher in qualifying or your car testing will cease for the remainder of the season". There might even be a 113.1.46 which states that in future years in punishment "you will do MOST of testing, including tire and chassis testing, after which Sir Diva driver" will just get in the car and go ridiculously fast"

I saw that article before, but "did not get a lot of testing" is quite vague and is not exactly supportive of the claim that because Irvine beat Schumacher in qualifying in the first race of the year Irvine was not allowed to do ANY teating for the rest of the year... which has been our bone of contention.

I have yet to see anything that says the 1st race qualifying better than Schumi resulted in Irvine being barred fron testing for the year other than Irvine saying so... have you? As I have said repeatedly, it would make no semse for the team given what we know.

None...which is why i said that it would damaging to Ferrari to prevent Irvine from testing... or to the point (I think) of your question to have very little testing.

BTW, I see you have yet to respond to my frequently asked question as to where is the media frenzy over such a shocking action as Irvine claims happened??? Do we really believe that they wouldn't have gone bonkers over such an unfair action? What i am not seeing... yet, is a creditable verification that it happened as Irvine says. Like I have said several times... it just doesn't make sense. I am not calling Irvine a liar, but perhaps he did as Mikey said... exaggerate the story. Makes for a much better story i line to say because of ONE qualifying Irvine was not allowed to test for the whole season. Ferrari had not had a WCC in nearly 20 years and despite what some may say, the WDC was and is important to Ferrari.

Well the article posted clearly shows that the media were aware of the lack of testing that Irvine was receiving but back then I would say that drivers being treated unfairly was perhaps a common thing and nothing to shout about?

Which article was that?

Yeah, you are probably right.... diva drivers, fearful of their cohorts after getting beat once in qualifying, making their team terminate their teammate's opportunities to test the cars he was to drive on the track was probably "old news" and not worthy of commentary. It was likely just the normal way of being unfair to drivers... there was such a low standard back then. The media wouldn't seen it as note-worthy.

It was possibly even spelled out in the contracts.... maybe a clause 113.1.45 "though shalt not beat Michael Schumacher in qualifying or your car testing will cease for the remainder of the season". There might even be a 113.1.46 which states that in future years in punishment "you will do MOST of testing, including tire and chassis testing, after which Sir Diva driver" will just get in the car and go ridiculously fast"

I saw that article before, but "did not get a lot of testing" is quite vague and is not exactly supportive of the claim that because Irvine beat Schumacher in qualifying in the first race of the year Irvine was not allowed to do ANY teating for the rest of the year... which has been our bone of contention.

I have yet to see anything that says the 1st race qualifying better than Schumi resulted in Irvine being barred fron testing for the year other than Irvine saying so... have you? As I have said repeatedly, it would make no semse for the team given what we know.

There was unlimited testing available and Irvine had limited testing, why would Ferrari do this?

There was unlimited testing available and Irvine had limited testing, why would Ferrari do this?

Interestingly, not even Irvin apparently hinted that him not geting testing time would had any negative impact on the car development itself. He just brought up that as the example of Schumacher's unsportsmanship towards him, also understanding why he would do such politics - they were the opponents after all, it was F1. And didn't Ferrari have also a testing driver too? After all, "unlimited testing available" does not have to mean you do go "unlimited testing". Whatever.(done with this one)

Well the article posted clearly shows that the media were aware of the lack of testing that Irvine was receiving but back then I would say that drivers being treated unfairly was perhaps a common thing and nothing to shout about?

Which article was that?

Yeah, you are probably right.... diva drivers, fearful of their cohorts after getting beat once in qualifying, making their team terminate their teammate's opportunities to test the cars he was to drive on the track was probably "old news" and not worthy of commentary. It was likely just the normal way of being unfair to drivers... there was such a low standard back then. The media wouldn't seen it as note-worthy.

It was possibly even spelled out in the contracts.... maybe a clause 113.1.45 "though shalt not beat Michael Schumacher in qualifying or your car testing will cease for the remainder of the season". There might even be a 113.1.46 which states that in future years in punishment "you will do MOST of testing, including tire and chassis testing, after which Sir Diva driver" will just get in the car and go ridiculously fast"

I saw that article before, but "did not get a lot of testing" is quite vague and is not exactly supportive of the claim that because Irvine beat Schumacher in qualifying in the first race of the year Irvine was not allowed to do ANY teating for the rest of the year... which has been our bone of contention.

I have yet to see anything that says the 1st race qualifying better than Schumi resulted in Irvine being barred fron testing for the year other than Irvine saying so... have you? As I have said repeatedly, it would make no semse for the team given what we know.

There was unlimited testing available and Irvine had limited testing, why would Ferrari do this?

Poker, we had a conversation earlier about interpretations, and this illustrates the point I was making. The above article talks about Irvine having limited (but not zero) mileage, but does not go into the reasons for it. Yet you appear to think it's proof that Schumacher blocked Irvine from testing, reasoning that this was because Irvine was faster than Schumacher in his first qualifying. Can you not see you are making some fairly hefty assumptions there? This is why people want to see sources for themselves, so that they might form their own conclusions, free from personal interpretation.

I posted a quote earlier where Irvine said he did the bulk of the testing, since Schumacher wasn't that good at it. If he'd been specifically blocked by Schumacher in his first year, don't you think it likely he would have taken the opportunity to add that it was ironic that Schumacher blocked him initially, when he subsequently did more of it?

Yeah, you are probably right.... diva drivers, fearful of their cohorts after getting beat once in qualifying, making their team terminate their teammate's opportunities to test the cars he was to drive on the track was probably "old news" and not worthy of commentary. It was likely just the normal way of being unfair to drivers... there was such a low standard back then. The media wouldn't seen it as note-worthy.

It was possibly even spelled out in the contracts.... maybe a clause 113.1.45 "though shalt not beat Michael Schumacher in qualifying or your car testing will cease for the remainder of the season". There might even be a 113.1.46 which states that in future years in punishment "you will do MOST of testing, including tire and chassis testing, after which Sir Diva driver" will just get in the car and go ridiculously fast"

I saw that article before, but "did not get a lot of testing" is quite vague and is not exactly supportive of the claim that because Irvine beat Schumacher in qualifying in the first race of the year Irvine was not allowed to do ANY teating for the rest of the year... which has been our bone of contention.

I have yet to see anything that says the 1st race qualifying better than Schumi resulted in Irvine being barred fron testing for the year other than Irvine saying so... have you? As I have said repeatedly, it would make no semse for the team given what we know.

There was unlimited testing available and Irvine had limited testing, why would Ferrari do this?

Poker, we had a conversation earlier about interpretations, and this illustrates the point I was making. The above article talks about Irvine having limited (but not zero) mileage, but does not go into the reasons for it. Yet you appear to think it's proof that Schumacher blocked Irvine from testing, reasoning that this was because Irvine was faster than Schumacher in his first qualifying. Can you not see you are making some fairly hefty assumptions there? This is why people want to see sources for themselves, so that they might form their own conclusions, free from personal interpretation.

I posted a quote earlier where Irvine said he did the bulk of the testing, since Schumacher wasn't that good at it. If he'd been specifically blocked by Schumacher in his first year, don't you think it likely he would have taken the opportunity to add that it was ironic that Schumacher blocked him initially, when he subsequently did more of it?

Poker posted a video from Eddie on previous page, but I think Eddie just exaggerating things there, may be effects of the beer

pokerman wrote:

I found it on episode 16 so you can imagine how long it took, go to 10:15, just before that it mentions the games Schumacher played with Rosberg.

Yeah, you are probably right.... diva drivers, fearful of their cohorts after getting beat once in qualifying, making their team terminate their teammate's opportunities to test the cars he was to drive on the track was probably "old news" and not worthy of commentary. It was likely just the normal way of being unfair to drivers... there was such a low standard back then. The media wouldn't seen it as note-worthy.

It was possibly even spelled out in the contracts.... maybe a clause 113.1.45 "though shalt not beat Michael Schumacher in qualifying or your car testing will cease for the remainder of the season". There might even be a 113.1.46 which states that in future years in punishment "you will do MOST of testing, including tire and chassis testing, after which Sir Diva driver" will just get in the car and go ridiculously fast"

I saw that article before, but "did not get a lot of testing" is quite vague and is not exactly supportive of the claim that because Irvine beat Schumacher in qualifying in the first race of the year Irvine was not allowed to do ANY teating for the rest of the year... which has been our bone of contention.

I have yet to see anything that says the 1st race qualifying better than Schumi resulted in Irvine being barred fron testing for the year other than Irvine saying so... have you? As I have said repeatedly, it would make no semse for the team given what we know.

There was unlimited testing available and Irvine had limited testing, why would Ferrari do this?

Poker, we had a conversation earlier about interpretations, and this illustrates the point I was making. The above article talks about Irvine having limited (but not zero) mileage, but does not go into the reasons for it. Yet you appear to think it's proof that Schumacher blocked Irvine from testing, reasoning that this was because Irvine was faster than Schumacher in his first qualifying. Can you not see you are making some fairly hefty assumptions there? This is why people want to see sources for themselves, so that they might form their own conclusions, free from personal interpretation.

I posted a quote earlier where Irvine said he did the bulk of the testing, since Schumacher wasn't that good at it. If he'd been specifically blocked by Schumacher in his first year, don't you think it likely he would have taken the opportunity to add that it was ironic that Schumacher blocked him initially, when he subsequently did more of it?

How am I making the wrong interpretation on something that Irvine actually said?

Also an article brought forward that said that Irvine actually did some testing also said that his testing had been restricted.

Poker, there is a difference between some testing and NO testing. Also your article, nor any other source yet posted, that even hints that Irvine's qualifyng was the reason Irvine was not allowed to test, much less confirms It. That is one of the major points of discussion here.

Poker, there is a difference between some testing and NO testing. Also your article, nor any other source yet posted, that even hints that Irvine's qualifyng was the reason Irvine was not allowed to test, much less confirms It. That is one of the major points of discussion here.

Apart from Irvine saying it himself you mean?

Are Ferrari going to come out 20 years after the event to deny what happened or perhaps Ferrari just don't car anyway about something that happened so long ago?

Yes poker... apart from Irvine himself. Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse in this. Where are the media rants on this heavy handed demand that Ferrari eliminate Irvine's testing because Schumi got beat in one qualifying session. I know that you believe it... personally I ... and others, have doubts.

It just seems very strange that this would not have been a media and paddock outrage.

Yes poker... apart from Irvine himself. Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse in this. Where are the media rants on this heavy handed demand that Ferrari eliminate Irvine's testing because Schumi got beat in one qualifying session. I know that you believe it... personally I ... and others, have doubts.

It just seems very strange that this would not have been a media and paddock outrage.

Were did Irvine say that he told the media at that time?

Also there is an article that stated that Irvine had limited testing.

Edit: Let's not forget that Irvine didn't volunteer this, he was asked was he ever treated unfairly and gave it some thought before he answered, I daresay that was the first time he spoke about it?